If we ever go back to /icup/ again, these anthems we'll use.

/monarchy/ is invited to the 3rd 8moe Duels Soulcalibur 6 tournie. You are welcome to add another character (if you want) or re-roll your character's fighting style fighting style. The event is being hosted at >>>/icup/5943 It will be sometime this upcoming weekend.

Esther and her best friends. Colour version HD coming soon...

Now, I promised: Esther and her best friends Avellana of /av/, Grace of /monarchy/ and Lila of /tkr/ Colour version and HD

#9: Community of pleasures and pains through a Cult of Personality. If there is one innovation here every monarchist should consider, it is the advent of the Cult of Personality, or work of One Person on the multitude. Plato Republic >And the chief cause of this is when the citizens do not utter in unison such words as ‘mine’ and ‘not mine,’ Plato Republic - Community of Pleasures & Pains >And there is unity where there is community of pleasures and pains–where all the citizens are glad or grieved on the same occasions of joy and sorrow? >No doubt. >Yes; and where there is no common but only private feeling a State is disorganized This is a controversial point, but Hobbes first talks about appetites (pleasures) and aversions (pains) of the private persons, then consolidates all the persons into One Personhood. <Thomas Hobbes The Generation Of A Common-wealth

This (in)famous picture of ᴉuᴉlossnW with a plurality of Si, si, si, si, si, si behind his personage represents this unity of the representer and a cult of personality Imagine every Si behind ᴉuᴉlossnW as "Mine" and "Thine" like Plato says – it seems like the condition is met where all citizens utter in a unanimous voice "mine" and "thine" – without abolishing private property, but I'll talk about that soon. … Consider the Community of Pleasures and Pains, this is cultivated in Hobbes' Leviathan and private appetites and private aversions are not allowed to override the Leviathan: >But in a Common-wealth this measure is false: Not the Appetite of Private men, but the Law, which is the Will and Appetite of the State is the measure. … Now, considering private property: Hobbes allows the distribution of private property, but it is limited by the popular consent, the distribution from the Sovereign is also in accord with unanimous "mine" and "thine" in a way. <Hobbes: Propriety Of A Subject Excludes Not The Dominion Of The Sovereign, But Only Of Another Subject >From whence we may collect, that the Propriety which a subject hath in his lands, consists in a right to exclude all other subjects from the use of them; and not to exclude their Sovereign, be it an Assembly, or a Monarch. For seeing the Sovereign, that is to say, the Common-wealth (whose Person he represents,) is understood to do nothing but in order to the common Peace and Security, this Distribution of lands, is to be understood as done in order to the same: And consequently, whatsoever Distribution he shall make in prejudice thereof, is contrary to the will of every subject, that committed his Peace, and safety to his discretion, and conscience; and therefore by the will of every one of them, is to be reputed voyd. So particular subjects are limited in their estate, all property is limited by an absolute power – as well as subordinate corporations – by a sovereign, who has in his cult of personality "thine" and "mine" of every subject in a plurality of voices brought unto one voice. ... Those are similarities I've taken note of (despite their differences in philosophy).

This should be helpful.

>>6741 >your IP is from a known spammer Well guess TOR not working.

Anyone noticed that Graceposter basically disappeared once King Charles took to the throne?

>>2450 >>7859 Youre fucking retarded

Great 4chan thread about Salazaer, Anon. I'll have to keep an eye on this board too.

>>7898 Well done for eloquently putting it. Of course concerns over hereditary weaknesses exist. It's been speculated that Prince William shot his love rival to a bloody mess with a shotgun and that the royal palace covered it up. It's up to you to decide whether as two become one flesh, an assault however invited by the wife is an assault upon the self upon which it's justifiable to react with such force, or if these are unkingly/unqueenly ways for royals to behave. I've seen fit to conclude that "Prince William is quietly based". In any case it is my hope that little George is more than the sum of his parts. William will fear the jews ability to oust his guilty consciences to an unfeeling and unforgiving world and so this strategy goes on and on down the line. Get compromising details or information on them, then blackmail them accordingly. The same will happen to little George and to his kin. The idea it's always easy to stir plebescian outrages is true but it's in the job description of a King to effectively handle these things. There's a two-fold threat offered by the rumblings of the plebes. The first threat comes from revolutionary figures appearing to have gained for themselves or even worse the group as a whole, the so-called "mandate of heaven". The way out is for the leaders of the rebellion to die not as martyrs but as a result of their own flaws and their own vices. Mandate of God in so doing leaves them. The second threat comes from either foreign or your own domestic spooks with their drone technology and their bay of pigs psy operations. This one is relatively recent and evolving. It was not quite as easy in the 14th century to get that many bad actors that close to the King and his palace staff. The best answer I have is "go and get yourself a lot of legitimate sons". You can't afford to dwell with paranoia over what might drop out of the sky, or hide from every civic and public engagement. My more eager concerns are how do I get from a parliamentary democracy back to the monarch being in charge of our country? First I might shrink the parliament down from 650, but it does not matter where you shrink it towards. You can say "150 or fewer is ideal", or "90 to 120 is ideal", or "two classrooms' worth is ideal" but it's not the number of them that corrupts the institution so much as the manner of their running. Originally this parliament sat once yearly to decide how the King's tax men were to behave in raising funds against an enemy realm. Looking at the modern state (literally "State" of it now) is appalling. I must know how to get to there again and then I must know ways of addressing it in a plebescian way. Until then I think we are damned. The furthest we can hope for out of our system is maybe a figure like Milei.

>>2729 > yes, yes and yes

UK in pretty rough shape now. Shame.

>>2728 Yes.

>>7925 >since you have made your opinion on right Libertarians quite clear elsewhere. It is reciprocal tbh. Like I said, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn says in an interview Absolute Monarchy is evil. & others have vilified us with prominent historical narratives coming from Alexis de Tocqueville & Bertrand de Jouvenel & I see Hoppe's From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy as an extension. The right libertarian crowd, constitutional monarchists, utlra-clerical Catholics, etc, they're always my main opposition b/c of it. I guess you could say you cannot blame one side or the other for starting it. This debate in the history of political thought extends far, far, far back.

Pope Leo XIV

>>7931 Well, I suppose that's unfortunate then. I really do believe we have more in common than not. Certainly more that right Libertarians have with Liberals and Democrats.

The Stuarts + Julio-Claudians are my favorites. I also have a soft spot for the Kim dynasty.

>>7502 Habsburgs. Also Přemyslovci.

>>7502 No question here.

>>4505 Its not Cirno.

>then as a catholic traditionalist, I will assert the idea of decentralization and one among equals for monarchy and the idea of a Europe of a Thousand Liechensteins <although I would NEVER peddle those same ideals for the Pope as one among equals among the bishops nor abide well with a thousand Protestant denominations being like a pagan pantheon in every country.

Just the tip of the iceberg of all the insanity surrounding constitutional monarchists.